Pan-Anarchism Against the State, Pan-Secessionism Against the Empire

Main menu

Over at the website for the Center for a Stateless Society, Kevin Carson has a very good article taking down the center-left liberal retards who regard the state as nothing more than One Big Cub Scout Master. Carson demonstrates how stupid this perspective is even from the point of view of the liberals’ own standards and rational self-interest. What I find particularly interesting, however, is this comment from a reader called “Dave Chappell“:

I would say that it takes more than an authoritarian government however. The support of a certain percentage of the populous is needed for a system such as National Socialism to prevail. Antisemitism in Europe was endemic prior to the eventual political rise of a system that endorsed in officially. My hope for the US is that it is so naturally multi-cultural that there will be never a general acceptance of fascist ideology. A non-racist form of fascism is always possible though I suppose.

What?? A “non-racist form of fascism”? I have argued for years that a culturally leftward-leaning form of fascism is developing in the United States. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. American society exhibits many of the same qualities normally associated with fascism: the corporate state, military-industrial complex, prison-industrial complex, police state, crude jingoism, reckless military adventurism, therapeutic state, dissemination of crude propaganda passed off as journalism, demonizing critics as traitors and subversives, messianic-revolutionary national ideology (“American exceptionalism”), and hysteria over terrorism or crime. The Obama cult is not nearly as extreme as the cults of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Kim Il-Sung, but it’s close enough. One might be inclined to regard liberals’ foolish dismissals of the critics of creeping American fascism as rooted in a simplistic understanding of “fascism”: “Like, dude, man, there can’t be fascism if there’s no brown shirts, or swastikas, or nasty talk about Jews, right? Obama rules, man!” But one could also be inclined to consider the possibility that liberals know perfectly well what kind of order is being established in America, and they like it just fine, because they plan to use it to advance their own agenda as the Cultural Marxists continue to consolidate their position. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Attack the System

Related

Post navigation

17 comments

Each side advances their own agenda. The Cult of Personality is stronger with the Obamaites than with Conservatives and whomever their leader happens to be. Still, fascism as it existed in Germany would not happen here. It was the confluence of historical forces that gave rise to it. Socialism is a better term.

Great article you have explained in a short paragraph exactly what fascism is…Amazing thing is though most people don’t even realize the traits of fascism and what it is exactly..Personally I think the fascist love it when someone actually calls them a fascists then they can as you put it:Demonize the critics a s subversives.

Of the regimes that have been dubbed ‘fascist’, some have in been non-racist. I believe Franco’s Spain was one such.

Of course, to some die hard anti-fascists, nationalism (which i do believe is a constant of fascism, both on the street level and once institutionalized) can be conflated with racism in the blink of an eye, perhaps making this academic.

Absolutely! I grew up in the Christian fundamentalist subculture. Some of my relatives and and others around me were associated with people like Jerry Falwell, Christian Reconstructionists, Bob Jones University, Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, etc. When I first started to encounter political correctness as a young adult, I was like, “Hmm, where have I seen all this before?”

I’d recommend this book by David Heleniak that discusses this a bit further:

The reason that I bash political correctness as hard as I do is that it is necessary to understand the PC synthesized with neoliberal economics and American exceptionalism comprises the ideological superstructure of the state, the ruling class and the empire. The PC ideology that is disseminated by the media, schools, universities, mainline religion, government agencies, much of the corporate sector,etc. plays the same role as religious orthodoxy in traditional theocratic states. The media and the educational system have replaced the Church as the primary sources of inculcation with the State’s ideology. This is why a 21st century American anarchist like myself has to attack the PC ideology as venomously as Bakunin attacked the Church.

The reason that I bash political correctness as hard as I do is that it is necessary to understand the PC synthesized with neoliberal economics and American exceptionalism comprises the ideological superstructure of the state, the ruling class and the empire.

It would be effective, then, if at some point you wrote an essay that separates the general idea of tolerance, civility, and deference from political correctness. In my experience, most who buy into PC do so because they think they’re simply being polite. A true argument distinguishing PC from mere manners and thoughtfulness could be quite instructive.

I’ve arrived at the conclusion that cultural marxism is largely the divide-and-conquer strategy of the political establishment. By phrasing questions of opression and exploitation strictly in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability, they conveniently obscure the fact that class is the fundamental source of inequality in a state-capitalist society. This has the effect of pitting the population against each other across these lines and (to quote George Carlin) “while they, the rich, run off with all the fucking money. Happens to work.” That so many leftists can claim to be “radical” while simultaneously embracing bogus establishment ideology is like a bad joke.

It depends on the political correctness though. The media is generally very not politically correct, especially when it comes to Mexican migrants. This coincides with class struggle and anti-racism. So don’t think that political correctness doesn’t have its place in some forms.

Well, keep in mind many of the 60s radicals came from the upper and upper middle classes. Where did all of the student riots take place in the 60s? Columbia, Yale, Berkeley. Working class and ordinary middle class kids didn’t go to those universities in those days, and still don’t for the most part. So many of the 60s radicals were from the elite. Now they’ve grown up and achieved power simply through inheritance.

Some of it has to do with the success of the civil rights movement. Civil rights lost the South for the Democratic Party, and the Dems had to find a way to counter the GOP’s “southern strategy” (which was a ruse that was never taken very seriously-Nixon actually governed to the left of LBJ on domestic issues). Around 1970, Democratic strategists started looking for new constituencies, e.g., blacks, students, educated urban liberals, the antiwar movement, feminists, environmentalists, homosexuals. The New Left also started entering the Democratic Party and taking over its infrastructure around 1972. Also, the educated radicals from the 60s have come to dominate many professions, particularly higher education, social services, journalism, mainline religion, and entertainment.

Another issue has to do with the GOP strategy of courting the Religious Right (which was itself as counter-initiative against the Democrats’ courting of the New Left). As the “culture wars” have intensified, both sides have reached further out into the fringes in order to find constituents. The know-nothing yahoo types that are the Republican base today were more of a fringe element in the 60s (e.g., the Birchers, Billy James Hargis). In fact, the Repubs were often more liberal than the Dems on many issues in those days.

I think a lot of what you’re describing has to do with social unacceptability of traditional outgroup hostilities as well as the decline of traditional values in the cultural realm. “Faith, Family, and Flag” really doesn’t work with most people in Western countries anymore. These values are seen as archaic. So the ruling class needs a new ideological superstructure legitimize itself, so it picks New Left-influenced ideas like anti-racism, feminism, gay rights, environmentalism, equality, etc. rather than religion, patriotism, family values, ethnic pride, etc. It legitimizes the empire by depicting imperialism as a global crusade for human rights, democracy, liberating Muslim women, all that.

Also, it’s important to understand that these things by themselves are not a threat to the ruling class. The state itself, the corporate system, the empire-these things can all survive with or without affirmative action, abortion on demand, gay marriage, sexual harrassment laws, anti-discrimination laws, mass immigration, hysteria over global warming, etc. The ruling class would much rather people be distracted with this stuff rather than plotting the overthrow of the government, dissolution of the corporate system, liquidating the empire, armed struggle against the police state, etc.

I’d argue the media is usually rather pro-immigration. There are exceptions, of course, like Lou Dobbs and some of the talk radio/Fox News/neocon types. But that’s not the mainstream of U.S. journalism.

Here’s an example: The issue of medical neglect of prisoners was rarely if ever mentioned in the U.S. media until some sensational cases came along concerning medical neglect of prisoners charged with immigration violations. Then stories about this started appearing in places like the New York Times, but even then it was made to look like it was only immigrant prisoners, rather than prisoners in general, who were subject to such treatment.

In other words, the media paid no attention to the medical neglect of prisoners until classes of person the media is sympathetic to were perceived to be affected. Even then, the media coverage is limited only to those prisoners approved of by the media. There are exceptions, of course, but I’ve noticed this to be the general trend.

“What?? A “non-racist form of fascism”? I have argued for years that a culturally leftward-leaning form of fascism is developing in the United States. See here, here, here, here, here, and here”

I can only apologise for not having been familiar with your previous blogs on the development of fascism in the US, I’m sure they are very good though.

I fear you may have missed the point of my response to Kevins article (or deliberately misrepresented it in the search for something to write about?). The aim was not to disagree with what was said, but merely to make the point that US fascism formed along race lines would be much less likely than a non-racist variety. You also conveniently left off the initial half of my post;

“Good article. Lets not forget that pre Nazi Germany was one of the most democratic and politically progressive countries in the world at that time. There is absolutely NOTHING to stop a country turning towards fascism.”

Even the line of mine that you quoted does not imply that I am critical – “A non-racist form of fascism IS ALWAYS POSIBLE…” Hmm, not much criticism there. So far from being a ‘liberal’ who is ‘foolishly dismissing’ ‘the critics of creeping American fascism’, I am actually agreeing. But then of course you knew that already; you just needed a straw man to burn.